NEW YORK, June 1 (Xinhua) -- "De-risking, not de-coupling" -- the principle of the economic approach to China recently agreed on by the Group of Seven (G7) countries -- can lead to massive uncertainties, reported the U.S. Brookings Institution on Tuesday.

　　"'De-coupling' any major country's economy from China was always impossible and sounds harshly radical, but it's been a commonly used and divisive word in China policy circles," said the article authored by Paul Gewirtz. "The word 'de-risking' sounds considerably more moderate, makes intuitive sense, and has now produced a highly publicized consensus on China policy among a large variety of different countries."

　　In reality, the word "de-risking" is extremely ambiguous and its meaning uncertain. The word itself tells us very little about China policy. Its scope all depends on how the word is interpreted, wrote Gewirtz, the Potter Stewart Professor of Constitutional Law at Yale Law School and the Director of the Paul Tsai China Center at Yale University.

　　"Very likely, different countries will interpret and apply 'de-risking' differently, creating divergence and not consensus -- in some countries producing a modest scope of economic separation, in some potentially a policy similar to 'de-coupling'," said the essay titled "Words and policies: 'De-risking' and China policy."

　　There are massive uncertainties associated with such wording, including what the "de" in "de-risking" means, what counts as a relevant risk, and how a particular risk is evaluated and balanced against a country's other national interests in deciding whether action should be taken against China and what that action should be, it noted.